BHAILAL REROLLERS Vs. MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The above batch of appeals involves identical questions of law for consideration on almost similar factual background and as such are dealt with gether. C.A. NO. /2003 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2123/2000)

(3.) The appellant in this appeal has established a steel re-roiling Mill and is engaged in re-rolling of iron steel. Being a consumer of electric energy for the purpose, the appellant entered in an agreement dated 24.12.92 with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short "Board") for supply of energy on s contracted load agreement of 150 H.P. Low Tension A/C 400 volts industrial power at the rate of Rs. 1.10 per unit in terms of the unit meter reading subject the terms and conditions set out therein. It is stated that on 18.2.94 the tariff relating the supply of Low Tension energy has been enhanced Rs. 2.25 per unit for all units which consumed with minimum charges of 60 units per month or part thereof of the contracted load. A meter measure and record the consumption was installed at the premises in terms of the requirement of 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the terms of the agreement entered in with the Board. The appellant claims that the bills prepared according the meter readings in the unit meter located in the premises in question was being regularly paid without default and that the working of the meter was also being regularly checked from time time by the officials of the Board and that at no time there was any complaint regarding the using of any machinery exceed the contracted load of 150 H.P. The grievance of the appellant was with reference the installation what is called as maximum demand indicar/meter for short (MDI meter), though there was no provision in the agreement enabling them do so. The MDI meter is said be a device measure the maximum demand at a particular half an hour cycle of running the machinery in the facry, meaning thereby it measures the maximum demand of electric energy in a cycle of half an hour and not either the actual consumption of electricity or the horse power of mors or any other electrical equipment installed for use. According the appellant though electricity actually consumed is recorded in the energy meter, the MDI meter showed higher amperage. It is further stated that though the tal contracted load of machinery in the facry of the appellant has been certified be 147.5 H.P. and not in excess of the contracted load capacity of 150 H.P, the Board, according the appellant, on 12.8.94 arbitrarily worked out the working load capacity of the machinery as 236 B.H.P. on their own and on the basis of the MDI meter reading for the months of March 94 June 94 and on that basis demanded the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 75,625/-. On threat of disconnection of supply the said amount was said have been paid avoid any inconvenience resulting from such disconnection. When representations in this regard with the authorities did not bring forth any positive results, the appellant filed W.P.No.876 of 1995 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, seeking quash the bills raised for an additional demand of the nature noticed above and also prayed for restraining the Board from raising such bills in future on the basis of the MDI meter installed in the premises.